The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Mirrors.

So Obama has decided to stick with Chuck Hagel as his nominee for Secretary of Defense. According to Jill Lawrence, there could be as many as six different reasons he's done this -- despite Hagel's chewing-over in the media from the left and the right. Of the six, Lawrence herself debunks at least one on the spot (Senators "give deference to their own"). And two others seem flimsy at best. Hagel is said to "add a tinge of bipartisanship" to Obama's cabinet; but Hagel's generally conservative-friendly record in Congress won't register much on the narrow frequency of foreign policy that's caused him to be tapped. He's been selected not because he adds a Republican flavor to the Obama soup, but because he intensifies the flavor that's already there. Like Hagel, Obama himself has given liberals and conservatives plenty of reasons for dismay.

In fact, Hagel's affinity with Obama, a matter of both policy and disposition, casts doubt on Lawrence's reason #1 for keeping him aboard: "Obama does not want to be seen as caving twice to GOP attacks, Rice followed by Hagel." The reality is that Chuck Hagel isn't a challenging nominee for Obama because of how much certain Republicans despise him. It's because Hagel has so few champions -- or even enthusiastic supporters. It isn't much of a stretch to say that, right now, Barack Obama is his only champion. Maybe Obama is his only enthusiastic supporter, too. Of all of the fire-breathing directed at Hagel from the likes of Jennifer Rubin, Rubin's most potent criticism is simply a recitation of fact: "while leaking the Hagel nomination over the weekend, the administration lined up no support from Senate Democrats for the Sunday shows." She slams Obama for making "an inexplicably dumb misstep," but the explanation is plain from what's left of Lawrence's six reasons, now down to three:

"Hagel would be a solid ally at the Pentagon." "Hagel shares Obama's caution about military intervention." "Obama and Hagel like and trust one another."

It's really just one reason: Obama and Hagel like each other, because they are like each other. Not the sort who cultivate fans, friends, or flatterers. Not the sort who think of themselves as obliged to put foreign policy principle above politics. They both seemingly seek to operate beyond conventional, school-driven foreign policy, but their approach to foreign policy is strangely super-conventional. Hagel was for the Iraq war before he was against it, less an index of cowardliness or spinelessness than a reminder of how easily Washington insiders can flip their policy toggles. (Now Obama is a peacemaker, now he is a warmaker....) Hagel's alleged "realism" is perhaps better described as "prudent expedience," basically the Obama formula for foreign policy.

What's curious about Obama's loyalty to Hagel is that the confirmation fight it tees up has so little to do with what makes Hagel so controversial. Alone, Republican ire over his stance on Israel and Iran can't sink his nomination. Alone, disgruntled Democrats who'd prefer one of their own can't do it. Only the judgment that Hagel is less impressive than his high profile suggests -- a bit arrogant, a bit aloof, a bit self-entitled -- can do that. These are, not coincidentally, the same problems that dog Obama's relationships in Congress. Has anyone ever gone to the mat for Chuck Hagel? Has he ever given them a reason to do so? The answers to these questions might not change much this time around.